Talk:Druella/@comment-27595114-20150729023448/@comment-26419174-20150804192858
This topic, or more specifically the later parts of it, actually got me thinking a bit. Why is it that people(myself, other commenters, fanfic writers), often have reservations about monsterisation/ incubisation? There are many different reasons possible of course, but the one i find to be the most relevant to the topic as well as the strongest as a part of my own opinion on the topic, is that of mental changes. Obviously, I can not talk for other people so the following is my personal opinion but i have little doubts that there are people here who will agree with at least parts of this rant. Now, the issue comes from the fact that I consider my mind and all it's parts to be the crucial element that constitutes "me" as a person. Thoughts, opinions, attitudes, all that stuff are much more relevant to what "I" am than, say, hair color or height or dick size. The sheer importance of those things also means that any alteration of those is exceptionally difficult to accept. If those changes are forsed, things get even worse becouse I personally consider serious mind alteration to be an atrocity on par or even worse then murder, and if forsed to choose between death or forsed brainwashing(of unknown extent) i would pick the former. Considering that as wel as the fact that monsterisation/incubisation are inavoidable unless you are an order fanatic, and irreversible(incubisation can be but if it is it's still very difficult to reverse) the only way they become acceptable is if 2 criteria are fulfilled: 1. The extent of changes is known and they are deemed acceptable 2. There is absolute, 1010%, beyond any reasonable doubt certainty, that said level will not be changed Now, the possible counter argument to this to claim that it is known what the changes are. That is technicslly true, but different materials contradict each other which alone makes it enough to ensure that necessary level of certainty cannot be achieved. If we are to go into detail then the problems are as follows: Wandering scholar: is unreliable by the word of god and that unreliability is in every word since the statement was made that one can ignore anything scholar says that he(the reader does not like). In addition i cannot find a way scholar could have met DL and deruella the latter inside a dark demon realm without becoming an incubus himself which reduses his credibility even further. Saphirette: a monster herself which makes her problematic from the get go but made even worse by the word of god excplicitly say that her opinion on the topic are biased in favor of monsterisation/ incubisation. KC: the man himself in FAQ made a statement that the extent of the changes is minuscule. The problem is that this statement is contradicted by at least^ ushi- oni profile, Holstaur milk article nd lilim book profile. the latter Is not available on the wiki, so to prove my words i would like to provide a quote and a link from MGR. http://monstergirlsredux.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=107 In the first post of this topic there is the following text, quote : "Book profile was largely the same as original profile, one part longer, another shorter. Brolen translated the differences below: <><><> Since their ideal is a world where all women have become monsters and monsters and human men continue to have sex lewdly, they will aggressively convert human women into monsters. Which race they will be changed into varies. Sometimes the women will be changed into monsters that suit their personality and ideals, but sometimes they'll be changed just for amusement: “I want to see how they'll have sex after being transformed.” They'll turn a feisty jerk who was a cocktease into a cockatrice, a cowardly monster whose purpose is to get raped by men over and over, and they'll turn a sickly, shy little girl who couldn't even talk to men into an amazoness that brazenly rapes men. What monster they decide on depends on their mood." there was a bit more there but it was irrelevant to the topic. The third and the forth sentences provide what i percieve to be a contardiction.Obviously the possible counter is that the word of KC outweights that of in verse characters, which is true and would have perhaps made that statement sufficient in most other cases, but in this one the issue is too important and the necessary degree of certainty is too high to let it slide. However, the biggest problem that causes the uncertainry come from what is shown as opposed to what is told. If we look at the named(for a given value of named ) characters who underwent incubisation/ monsterisation then we'll find out that both named incubi( DL's Husband and YOU) are basicaly non characters of whom we know little as humans and even less as incubi. This lack of information post- transformation is by itself somewhat problematic becouse it rises the question of "why if their minds are same their impact on the world post transformation is equall to that of a blow up doll with their SE capacity and taste?" A minor point for sure, but a point against none the less. The monsterisation on the other hand contains one case supporting what we were told(saphirette) two which contardict it (wilmarina and merse) and two upon which i am uncertain(francisca and mimiru). In other words the information shown to us as i understand it is more in opposition to KC statement then in support of it even before we remember that the importance of the issue in question is a readon to err on the side of caution and treat all doubts as points against. On the flip side Showing also provides for a possible solution: to provede us with stories where characters go through process in question and emerege just as the FAQ claims they would. The more the better of course, but one might do if it is extremly detailed and focused on the process. My apologies for the wall of text as well as the misspelings but this is something i wanted to say for a long time now.